Heath posted:

Thanks, I didn't understand the thing I said until you rephrased it.

The problem for me is the idea of ostensibly trying to be an artist but the entire genre is so saturated with the concept of derivation that you're not even allowed to attempt to escape from being derivative. I'm not trying to advocate an impossible total originality, but the implication that I have perhaps just re-written Game of Thrones-but-Africa-flavored would cheapen the contributions to and of my own work. And the comparisons are never like what TGEK did above in taking a section of Tolkien that also features a dragon attack and contrasting the actual technique of the writing, it's always something like "your novel features a corrupt and oppressive nobility. It has been compared to Game of Thrones, which also features a corrupt and oppressive nobility." It's intellectually insulting to both the author and the reader, and yes, I get why it's like that in the most reductionist it's-capitalism-stupid sense, but I presume there are at least some seriously-minded writers out there who would like to write a genre book but feel put off by the notion that anything they write is going to get slotted into a category titled by some book series that happened to sell very well a decade ago, whatever the reason.

I am not literally saying I don't understand the state of things, I am asking rhetorically why it has to be that way for the sake of discussion. It is embarrassing that I have to state that explicitly in the loving reading forum.